P L D 1962 W (PLP)

This is a revision from the appellate order dated 21‑3‑1961, as the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby he upset the Collecter, Gujranwala's selection of a local Jat Hussain Bakhsh and in his stead appointed Wali Muhammad a refugee Baloch, as Lambardar of the evacuee path Kirpal Singh, village Karyal Kalan. The Additional Commissioner has given four very good reasons for setting aside the Collector's order, which in fact, was the nature of an ex‑parse order, as the claims of Wali Muhammad respondent were not considered, because he had not appeared on the date of the hearing until 11‑45 a.m. In the appeal the respondent had pleaded that he had been regularly attending the Collector's Court for this case. The record corro borates this claim as the entries in the Collector's file are as follows: ‑ (i) 23‑11‑1960 All these candidates appeared. The Collector was absent on tour. Case postponed. (ii) 12‑12‑1960 Parties present. Collector presumably absent. H V C has signed the order for summoning the Patwari for preparation of the state ment of tribal composition In the Patti. N. B.‑(According to the respondent's grounds of appeal, the Court official informed the candidates that they would be summoned for the next date. This appears to be correct, since neither of the two contesting candidates was present on the next date below). (iii) 2‑1‑1961 Petitioner and respondent were both absent. Summons were ordered to be issued for their presence on 3‑2‑1951 at Bhupara Rest House. The Collector has made much of having waited for two hours for the parties to turn up. It should have been obvious to him that they had not been served, which was actually the position. It may be pointed out here that Revenue Officers must remember that the mere absence of an applicant, who has been attending Court regularly on a number of occasions and has not been heard owing to the Presiding Officer's heavy pre‑occupation does not justify dismissal of his claim off hand. In such cases it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to take special care to determine that the party has been served. Even if that is the position his claims as contained in his written application and as supported by the recommendation of Revenue Officers, if any, should be borne in mind vis‑a‑vis the claims of others. It Is clear that Collector's selection was, therefore, based) on ex‑parte arguments from the petitioner alone. He did not, take into consideration even the patent fact that refugees as well as Balochis were In a predominant majority‑49 Baloch families of the respondent's tribe as against 6 Jat families of the petitioner's tribe. Moreover, the respondent enjoyed a hereditary claim with ` life‑long services and has also served as temporary Lambardar since partition. For his meritorious services, he had been recommended by the Tehsildar as well as the Revenue Assistant, Gujranwala. Thus, out of the criteria laid down under Punjab Land Revenue Rules, rule 15, the respondent had scored heavily on all points except the solitary one that the petitioner owned more land. As observed by the Additional Commissioner since the land owned by the respondent was adequate for the Government demand of some Rs. 1,600 per annum, there was no justification for preferr ing a local hailing from an insignificant minority community‑over him. The Collector's order was, highly unreasonable and was rightly set aside. There is no force in the revision which is rejected in limine. I would like to take this opportunity also of adverting to the) practice on the part of some Officers of fixing cases at out‑of‑the way Rest Houses on tour as has happened in this case. This practice must be indulged in only where the interest of the litigant public justifies it : i.e., where the parties are unrepresented by counsel and the Rest House concerned is not much more difficult of access than the District headquarters. Where these conditions are not satisfied, it can be a real punishment to unfor tunate litigants, as they would have generally not only to pay the counsel's fee for the entire day, but in addition to provide him a taxi to take him to the Rest House concerned. I had been disapproving this tendency as Commissioner and would confirm here that it should not be resorted to unless the above conditions are satisfied. The High Court would not tolerate such a practice on the part of Civil Courts to the inconvenience of, the litigant public. The Board of Revenue would also repeat its officers to strictly adhere to these principles, since the object of revenue laws and revenue procedures administered through Revenue Officers is to make available cheap, efficient and speedy Justice to the laying backward rustic population of the Province. A. H. Petition dismissed.